03 November, 2016

The Globalist Elite against the European people: a conflict of interests that risks to end European integration

Populism.
If you open a newspapers or look up the news online, you are likely
to find declarations from the President of the European Commission
Juncker, or the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or the French
President François Hollande, just to name a few, that ‘’European
people should not fall for populism’’.

by
Carlo Sacino

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of ‘’The Black Swan’’,
best-selling book on the verge of the 2007 financial crisis, offers a
different interpretation in one of his latest commentaries in a harsh
criticism of intellectuals: “What we generally call
participation in the political process, he (The Intellectual) calls
by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the
Intellectual-Yet-Idiot, and “populism” when the plebeians dare
voting in a way that contradicts his preferences.’’

Under that point of view, “populism’’ is a mere
rejection by the middle and working class of the Western world, both
Europe and the United States, of policies that they feel do not
benefit them.

In an old fashioned, liberal perspective, populism is
simply the lower classes pursuing their own interest, hence not a
threat to democracy at all; if anything, a much needed participation
that however happens to hold opposite views with that of the
established elite.

The rejection by the people of the choices of the elite
is best exemplified when people are allowed to go beyond the
traditional left and right division of parties, but get to vote on a
single issue. Here parties traditionally identified as center-right
or center-left tend to pick a side, while far right and far left
parties pick the other. The most recent examples are the Dutch
rejection of the Ukraine Accession Treaty in April, and the “populist
catastrophe’’ of Brexit in June, which both confirm the
unfavorable tradition of the European Union decisions in national
referendums.

The latter in particular caused an uproar: however the
success of the Brexit side wasn’t simply due to the efforts of the
far-right UKIP; the most decisive factor was the core electorate of
the pre-Blair, Labour, re-surging under the popular acclamation of
Jeremy Corbyn against the representatives of the “Modern Left’’.
“If you’ve got money, you vote in,” she said, with a bracing
certainty. “If you haven’t got money, you vote out,” opened the
Guardian, analyzing the referendum outcome, reminding how the richest
areas of London voted overwhelmingly pro-EU, while the lower income
areas of England voted overwhelmingly against it.

The reasons listed by the people interviewed by the
British newspapers range from wages shrinking to 3£ a hour, to
recruitment agencies discriminating against British people as
foreigners are willing to work “insane shifts for risible rates’’.

It’s hard to accuse people holding those views of
being ideologically biased against the EU, as they are simply voting
with their (empty) pockets and common sense, and yet some
intellectuals, sharing the views of the elite, raged against the
“mindlessly angry, ignorant masses’’, accusing them of
ignoring the grand scheme of global politics.

More recently, Christine Lagarde of the IMF addressed
the need to make “globalization work for all,’’
admitting that “growing inequality in wealth, income, and
opportunity in many countries has added to a groundswell of
discontent, especially in the industrialized world—a growing sense
among some citizens that they “lack control,” that the system is
somehow against them.”

Financial institutions are being seen as unaccountable
to society. Tax systems allow multinational companies and wealthy
individuals not to pay what many would consider a fair share.
Corruption remains endemic. And there is the challenge from
uncontrolled migration flows, contributing to economic and cultural
anxieties. The lower classes of developed economy have been the big
losers of globalization and therefore are rejecting the system.

The Economist on the other side rejected this view,
pointing out the decades of economic growth, and yet in an article
that opened with the premise of proving “wrong’’ those who
criticize globalization, it failed to address to whom that creation
of wealth went, missing the point completely.

Proponents of globalization thus seem to be blind to the
negative effects it has on the lower classes and deaf to criticism
which they belittle as populism with a paternalistic approach, and
yet the “populist’’ tide keeps rising and doesn’t see an end
in sight.

A failure to admit that certain policies have favored
the upper class over the lower ones, and the necessity to undo those
mistakes is today the biggest enemy of European integration.

The upcoming constitutional referendum in Italy could
signal the end of the pro-EU Renzi government, paving the way for the
anti Euro, yet not anti-EU for the moment Movimento 5 Stelle.

Next year both French and Dutch national elections will
see far right parties leading the polls.

If the globalist elite refuses to listen to legitimate
concerns of the people, 60 years of European integration risk being
rejected altogether with its current proponents by the common
citizen, even if he does not share an ideological bias against the
EU itself.